Inheritance of purity
alix.DOT.pexton at gmail.DOT.com
Fri Feb 24 06:12:18 PST 2012
On 24/02/2012 11:03, David wrote:
> Am 24.02.2012 11:43, schrieb Walter Bright:
>> On 2/23/2012 4:01 PM, F i L wrote:
>>> Well then I disagree with Walter on this as well. What's wrong with
>>> having a
>>> "standard" toolset in the same way you have standard libraries? It's
>>> to think people (at large) will be writing any sort of serious
>>> outside of a modern IDE. I'm not saying it's Walters job to write IDE
>>> integration, only that the language design shouldn't cater to the
>>> use-case scenario.
>> Do you really want a language that the source code isn't readable or
>> browsable outside of an IDE?
>> Like the switch from command line to GUI, perhaps there are some that
>> are ready to switch from text files to some visually graphy thingy for
>> source code. But D ain't such a language. I don't know what such a
>> language would look like. I've never thought much about it before,
>> though I heard there was a toy language for kids that you "programmed"
>> by moving boxes around on the screen.
> I think you mean Robot Karol, but this uses also a basic like syntax.
Sounds to me more like Scratch
More information about the Digitalmars-d